Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Decriminalization of drugs

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We ought to legalize child prostitution as well ........ .

    Oh, not child prostitution, I mean, young males and females.

    Where do you draw the line. We quit here, it is one step closer to total moral anarchy.

    We, as a society, cannot handle excesses. Alcohol = big problems. Oh, that one works SOOOOOO well, we might as well let more drugs through the door. Yeah, pot is "harmless." Whatever.
    "Socrates was a philosopher. He talked a lot. They killed him." unknown to me.

    "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bigislander72
      Many former users can attest to the lack of productiveness, clear thinking and emotional blunting caused by MJ use. Its not harmless, but adults should have that choice without risking a criminal record.
      Therein lies the problem, however you're missing a key word....responsible. Unfortunately the world is filled with too many stupid people who under such impairment cause harm to others.

      Now looking at one (of many) of the more long term effects, what about the relationship between chronic MJ use and it's link to being emotionally disturbed?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by scratch13
        We ought to legalize child prostitution as well ........ .

        Oh, not child prostitution, I mean, young males and females.

        Where do you draw the line. We quit here, it is one step closer to total moral anarchy.

        We, as a society, cannot handle excesses. Alcohol = big problems. Oh, that one works SOOOOOO well, we might as well let more drugs through the door. Yeah, pot is "harmless." Whatever.
        Comparing smoking a joint to child prositution? Wow...

        So, since society can't be responsible for their own actions, let's ban all drugs, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, candy, reading material that could possibly harm someone (emotionally or otherwise) and caffeine.

        Americans are obviously so incapable of taking care of themselves, the government should really step in and tell us all how to live safely.

        As a matter of fact, anything that can be addictive should be banned! And some people are addicted to sex, so we should require people to register if they want to do that... wow, this new world is going to be great!

        So, where do you stop?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by scratch13
          We ought to legalize child prostitution as well ........ .

          Oh, not child prostitution, I mean, young males and females.

          Where do you draw the line. We quit here, it is one step closer to total moral anarchy.

          We, as a society, cannot handle excesses. Alcohol = big problems. Oh, that one works SOOOOOO well, we might as well let more drugs through the door. Yeah, pot is "harmless." Whatever.
          It's just plain ridiculous comparing something as minor as smoking bud to a heinous crime like child prostitution or molestation - it's an entirely different subject and holds no water in this conversation. Attempting to sensationalize will do no good here...

          The only reason many people think smoking pot is immoral is because they equate legality to morality - and lack the ability to think for themselves or question authority. I know many people that smoke on a regular basis and are bright, hard-working dedicated parents that have many positive effects on their community and society as a whole. Would they be less productive with out smoking pot - probably not, but it makes them happy and helps wind down the end of the day so it's not causing any harm...

          Is pot harmless - no.
          Is more damage caused by the prohibition of marijuana than would be caused by it's legal distribution, taxation and use - yes.
          Last edited by jbauch357; 04-10-2007, 02:39 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by scratch13
            Where do you draw the line. We quit here, it is one step closer to total moral anarchy.
            The government is not supposed to legislate morality.

            Originally posted by leopold99
            do we need to be a nation of drug users?
            It is up to every individual whether or not they want to be a drug user. There is no blanket decision that applies to everyone.

            Originally posted by leopold99
            with that question wieghing heavy on your mind answer this: what nasty side effects does marijuana have to prevent rampant, widespread use?
            That's irrelevant, it is not up to me or the government to decide whether a substance should be used or not.

            Originally posted by leopold99
            so, you want to legalize pot? for what reason? to set a precedent perhaps?

            legalizing pot will get us nowhere as a country.
            Because it should be legal. It should be each person's choice what they put in their body. Something does not have to "get us somewhere as a country" in order to be legal. Marbles are legal, do those get us anywhere as a country?

            Originally posted by leopold99
            what would your guidelines look like in this case?
            General All-Purpose Guideline for Illegality: Does it infringe on the rights of other people?

            Murder, yes.
            Theft, yes.
            Dangerous driving, yes.
            Tresspassing, yes.
            Drugs, NO.
            Last edited by Fëanor; 04-10-2007, 05:27 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by leopold99
              camo cop,
              do we need to be a nation of drug users?
              with that question wieghing heavy on your mind answer this: what nasty side effects does marijuana have to prevent rampant, widespread use?
              I am confused. Are you saying pot should remain illegal because it doesn't have any nasty side effects?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jbauch357
                Is more damage caused by the prohibition of marijuana than would be caused by it's legal distribution, taxation and use - yes.
                I keep hearing this yet no one is biting on how exactly it is true. Is it because people can get a record for breaking the law? Isn't that the point?

                I know many who can drink alcohol and still be reasonable. However, there are how many alcohol related deaths each year? Legalization isn't the answer and I don't buy that more damage is caused by the prohibition. I'm very interested in hear valid points in favor though.

                I think the point scratch was making is that there are a lot of things that are being questioned in terms of laws and penalties, prosititution being one of them. People say the same thing about prostitution and the privacy behind closed doors between consenting adults. If you believe morality is a reason why people are so opposed i'm sure that is true somewhat. Then again, how many laws exist based on what's moral? The bible, which may be the earliest form of "law" has a host of thou shall/shall not's.

                Comment


                • Feanor:
                  Who says the government isn't supposed to regulate morality? I'd say there are a lot of laws out there that are in place for that very purpose.

                  So what? The government should just go hands off and let people become junkies and do as they see fit? If you want to live in a country free of those sorts of rules, go visit some of the countries out there right now. I'm pretty sure you'll learn to appreciate the lifestyle we have.

                  Freedom doesn't mean you can go out and do whatever you want.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mirrain
                    I don't buy that more damage is caused by the prohibition. I'm very interested in hear valid points in favor though.
                    It may not convince you, but my personal experience is all it takes to convince me.

                    When I was younger, I worked hard and partied harder. I was working full time, taking college courses, and about to graduate from high school 1 year early.

                    I got arrested for a couple grams of cocaine. I lost a scholarship. The court decided to revoke my DL, so I could no longer drive myself to school or work.

                    I was able to use drugs while still being a perfectly productive citizen and trying to better myself. But after the government got through with me, I was jobless and no longer able to attend college. I was forced to live off of my parents again.

                    Originally posted by Mirrain
                    I'd say there are a lot of laws out there that are in place for that very purpose
                    And I'd say every one of them should be done away with.

                    Originally posted by Mirrain
                    Freedom doesn't mean you can go out and do whatever you want.
                    You're right. It means you can go out and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mirrain
                      I keep hearing this yet no one is biting on how exactly it is true. Is it because people can get a record for breaking the law? Isn't that the point?

                      I know many who can drink alcohol and still be reasonable. However, there are how many alcohol related deaths each year? Legalization isn't the answer and I don't buy that more damage is caused by the prohibition. I'm very interested in hear valid points in favor though.
                      I'll take a shot at this one...

                      Right now you have hundreds of thousands of Americans that are regular marijuana smokers. Even though they know it's illegal and "officer-friendly" would love to bust them for possession and send them to jail, they still smoke on a regular basis. Many (not all) of these smokers are regular users that still live a happy and productive life, work regular jobs and do not have to resort to crime to support their recreational use.

                      Realistically the major negative aspect of their smoking is the legal system. Get caught with a bag and you get a fine (or jail time), now have to deal with the legal system, and probably have to go through some joke of a "rehabilitation" program. Most of the money spent for the policing efforts, court time, and anti-drug task forces comes from tax dollars that could be utilized for more worthy causes. Also a large part of the funding comes from the individual themselves paying for court costs, lawyer costs (if chosen), counseling fees, etc. The end result of this is more congestion in already crowded courts, loss of policing time, used tax dollars, wasted time of qualified councilors, lost work hours, etc - just because somebody wanted to smoke a doobie...

                      You give the same user the opportunity to buy pot legally, or even grow it at home (for the resourceful) - and all of the time and money spent on both ends can be diverted into more useful purposes. If the govt wants to grow their own pot that is great, make it high quality and tax it accordingly - then use the tax proceeds to provide treatment for people that admittedly have a substance abuse problem.

                      Making pot legal would remove the stigma of people trying it just cause it's taboo. I am sure that many will smoke one time and realize that they don't like being stoned, but can understand how others would find it desirable. Since they have experienced it that one time they will also have first hand experience vs propaganda as to what the actual effects of the drug are. I am not saying that everybody should try it, but you can't argue that people would have a better understanding and generally associate less negativity with the drug.

                      I know this because I have been through the legal meat grinder on four separate occasions for possession of paraphernalia, twice for minor in possession of alcohol (by consumption), and DUI. Each time I paid fines, went through counseling, attended classes, was put on probation, and had my driving privileges removed. Not one of those occasions had any other effect than cost me money, make getting to/from work more difficult, and cause considerable personal/professional hardships that weren't present before my persecution. I didn't quit drinking or smoking on any one of these occasions - and never had any intent to. I didn't see what I was doing as wrong and had no intention on changing my habits; all I learned was how to be more careful about avoiding LE and how to bluff the next counselor.

                      Last year after 10 years of solid drinking, smoking pot, chewing tobacco and smoking cigarettes I made the decision for myself that I was abusing the substances and it was time to stop. I quit all of them at the same time cold turkey - and didn't touch a single one for close to a year (it was one of the hardest things I ever did, but nothing that self control and determination couldn't tackle). Now I enjoy some of them in very light moderation and encourage other people to do the same if they want to.

                      Sorry, that was a bit long winded and kind of ran off topic - bit it seriously angers me when people come in here touting their anti-drug rhetoric when they have absolutely no experience in the matter and their opinion is based purely off anti-drug propoganda...

                      Note: I also kept gainfully employed during the entirety of my drinking/smoking. Sometimes I was working two jobs and would go weeks without a day off, others I was working a single job 6 days a week to afford putting myself through school at the same time, and now am a successful business professional. The only time that my use interfered with my professional career was when my license was revoked and I had no way to get to work, and when I would have to leave work to attend counseling or court...
                      Last edited by jbauch357; 04-10-2007, 06:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by leopold99
                        so in effect you are saying that LAWS are the only nasty side effect of marijuana use?
                        I won't say it's the only negative side effect. I've already outlined what I believe to be potentialy negative side effects such as apathy and a drop in productivity. I will opine that IMO the legal issues are the greatest negative issue related to marijuana use/possession.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Camo Cop
                          I won't say it's the only negative side effect. I've already outlined what I believe to be potentialy negative side effects such as apathy and a drop in productivity. I will opine that IMO the legal issues are the greatest negative issue related to marijuana use/possession.
                          You do know that pot has changed a lot since you smoked it in the 70s, right?

                          That today the stuff you (we) smoked gets thrown out during the cultivation?

                          Pot today is a whole different animal than it was in the 70/80s.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cst.sb
                            You do know that pot has changed a lot since you smoked it in the 70s, right?

                            That today the stuff you (we) smoked gets thrown out during the cultivation?

                            Pot today is a whole different animal than it was in the 70/80s.
                            Yep - and even with how potent modern pot is, people from 14 to 84 years old can smoke it all day long and function just fine. It's a lot like alcohol, you build a tolerance and learn how to function while stoned - it's not hard to do...

                            I'm not condoning being drunk and stoned all day long while trying to work, drive, etc, etc... but just cause the pot is more potent doesn't mean it's anymore dangerous than it was back in the 70's - cause it wasn't dangerous back then either
                            Last edited by jbauch357; 04-10-2007, 10:37 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by cst.sb
                              You do know that pot has changed a lot since you smoked it in the 70s, right?

                              That today the stuff you (we) smoked gets thrown out during the cultivation?

                              Pot today is a whole different animal than it was in the 70/80s.

                              What's your point? They have to smoke less to get the same buzz or are the hospitals suddenly filled with overdose patients?

                              Check this out:

                              "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)." (Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories."

                              Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)

                              OK, so we have 435,000 deaths attributed to tobacco, 85,000 attributed to alcohol consumption, 20,000 attributed to sexual behaviors and zero deaths attributed to marijuana. What was the debate again?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Camo Cop
                                What's your point? They have to smoke less to get the same buzz or are the hospitals suddenly filled with overdose patients?

                                Check this out:

                                "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)." (Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories."

                                Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)

                                OK, so we have 435,000 deaths attributed to tobacco, 85,000 attributed to alcohol consumption, 20,000 attributed to sexual behaviors and zero deaths attributed to marijuana. What was the debate again?
                                Ah, ya the debate. Well, it's hard to argue those numbers, but I am going to take a short at it.

                                Considering that there is irrefutable proof that Marihuana causes pre cancerous tumors, chronic lung infections and lowers the function of the immune system. One has to wonder how many of those "cancer" deaths were in part brought on, or hastened by Marihuana use?

                                Also lets look at the deaths caused by, poor diet, tobacco, and alcohol consumption, do you think maybe some of them were hasten by Marihuana consumption?

                                I don't know, but inhaling ANY type of smoke seems to cause lung and health issues. Firefighters seem to know this, but somehow the occasional cop thinks that smoking weed, (and all of us that have been to grows know, that they use all kinds of chemicals on the plants) is harmless.

                                I don't have the energy to dig around for the thread, (it's in here somewhere) a list of about 200 scientists that disagree with the idea the smoking pot is harmless.

                                Let's see some of the more fun things about Marihuana:

                                - Lower birth rates in children as THC is passed through the placenta.
                                - Hampers brain growth and development in young people.
                                - If you have a family history of schizophrenia, marijuana can trigger psychotic episodes
                                - Impairs fine motor skills
                                - Causes respiratory disorders such as acute bronchitis
                                - Impairs Judgement

                                Source Health Canada

                                But just for arguments sake

                                Dr. L. Robison in the publication "Cancer" and Dr. J. Buckley in "Cannabis: Physiopathology, Epidemiology, Detection", state that Babies born to mothers who use marijuana during pregnancy have eleven times the risk of getting childhood leukemia


                                Dr. D. Tashkin as in the Western Journal of Medicine reported - that Marijuana smoke produces airway injury, acute and chronic bronchitis, lung inflammation, and decreased pulmonary defences against infection. Smoking one marijuana cigarette leads to airway deposition of four times as much cancer-causing tar as does tobacco smoke

                                Based on research by reported in Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, the Journal of the American Medical Association and Southern Medical Journal it was reported that - Cases of cancer, including cancer of the mouth, tongue, larynx, jaw, head, neck, and lungs have been reported in young marijuana smokers that would not occur in tobacco smokers until much later in life.

                                Dr. S. Andreasson published in Britain's The Lancet reports that - Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. It has been shown that marijuana users are six times more likely to develop schizophrenia than are non-users.

                                Dr. Dan Brookoff, published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that - that not just alcohol that caused impaired accidents. A roadside study of reckless drivers who were not impaired by alcohol, showed that 45% of these drivers tested positive for marijuana.

                                Based on research by of Dr. Day et al, in Neurotoxicology and Teratology it was reported that - there are significant negative effects of prenatal marijuana exposure on the performance of children in standard intelligence tests. On average children exposed prenatally to marijuana will have a lower IQ compared to children who are not exposed

                                Would you like me to continue on with all the problems that don't seem to exist. I mean really, most of these doctors are probably paid off by the US government to lie to the public, because after all the latest edition of "Cannabis Culture" say weed is good for ya.

                                I mean really here guys, can we at least come up with a better argument than the one you're throwing at me? Or are you so steadfast in your beliefs that scientists and experts can't sway your "feelings" about Marihuana?

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5116 users online. 311 members and 4805 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X